December 29, 2007

Thanks, Matt Bai, NYT Magazine writer who is now also blogging on the NYT website. I'm extremely interested in that story, which I missed. I see you have created a link on those words "a New Hampshire blog," but when I click on it, I just get the whole blog! If you're going to blog, Matt, you have to link to the relevant posts. And he's written a book on blogging. Come on, Matt, links are key. Now, I'm forced to Google for the damned story myself, which is not a very bloggy experience.

[R]eaders of Blue Hampshire -- about 800 a day, a relatively small but consequential group that includes party activists and state Democratic leaders -- recommend "diaries" that visitors should read. Yesterday, four readers who created new accounts and recommended pro-Clinton postings were traced back to Clinton's campaign. And those readers, Blue Hampshire noted, didn't disclose their relationship with Clinton. In the blogosphere, there's a word for this frowned-upon behavior: "sock-puppeting."

WaPo links to the relevant post at Blue Hampshire, which shows the ineptitude of the puppetry:

Recently, we admins noticed this comment thread on a recommended diary, and the oddities it posed made us look a little deeper than we normally would.

As the comment thread revealed, users pinballwizard, elf, shley24, MTAY all registered in succession to recommend the diary. A further look by us revealed that:

* they had registered within minutes of each other, including another user a bit later, janbaby, who was not among the recommenders,

* the same IP address was used by all of them, and is registered to the Clinton campaign,

* two other recommenders, blues and kmeisje, also registered from the same IP address.

Surely, there must be much more puppetry that escapes attention if this is how dumb it is when it's caught.

Meanwhile, here's how Matt Bai begins his most recent post: "I’m still trying to get used to blogging...." Please. Spare me the neophyte posing. You wrote a whole book about blogging! You should be demonstrating the art of master blogging.

ADDED: Speaking of Matt Bai not linking, I was just reading (and linking to) this essay he wrote about Stephen Gilliard — who died this past year. Look at how it ends (with my boldfacing):

[T]he few dozen mostly white bloggers who came to Harlem for the funeral saw for the first time the stark urban setting of Gilliard’s childhood, while his parents and relatives groped to understand what kind of work he had been doing at that computer and why scores of people had come so far to see him off. They must have been confused when Gilly’s online pals, sickened by the way some right-wing bloggers were gloating over his death, advised them not to disclose where he was buried, out of fear that someone might deface the site. The grave, like Gilliard himself, is known only to a few.

What right-wing bloggers? What did they say? Were "Gilly's online pals" correct in their characterization, or were they out of line? This just hangs there. NYT readers are left to think ill of the right wing of the blogosphere. Why, they're a bunch of monsters who want to piss on a young man's grave! Did any significant blogger gloat over Gillard's death?

AND: Speaking of inadequate linking at the NYT... Glenn Reynolds notes a NYT book review that has a hyperlink on N.R.A., where the reference is to Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration, that takes us to a list of articles about the National Rifle Association. The mistake is still there 2 hours after Glenn conspicuously shamed them about it. The NYT should be making a conspicuous show of its professionalism and superior resources on the web, but instead it is making mistakes that would mortify me — in my little one-person operation.

If one looks really, really hard, one can probably find one or two self-important but otherwise unread hacks without consciences who did so.

What did they say?

Rude things no doubt. I don't really want to know what they said. YMMV, of course.

Were "Gilly's online pals" correct in their characterization, or were they out of line?

Probably a bit of both, but they are partisans with their own agenda and politicizing his death in that way served their purposes. I wonder how many of those so-called online friends really knew the man and if they have a daily readership much beyond single digits.

This just hangs there.

It was meant to.

NYT readers are left to think ill of the right wing of the blogosphere.

No, they are encouraged to. They are regularly encouraged to and discouraged from actually checking the facts for themselves (thus the routine lack of links). This is NOT news - it is a regular pattern of behavior at that publication.

Why, they're a bunch of monsters who want to piss on a young man's grave!

Yes, that is what they hope people will believe. They usually also say this behavior is caused by the radio presence of that evil man, Rush Limbaugh.

Did any significant blogger gloat over Gillard's death?

Don't know. I doubt it. Then again... there is no accounting for taste. As we saw earlier this week, lots of people (left, right and in between) enjoy dancing on graves. It seems to me that it is a particularly repulsive attention-getting pastime.

At the same time, Bai accomplishes his equally reprehensible goal: demonizing conservative bloggers and giving life to yet another internet meme with little basis in fact.

The example that caused the Kossacks to throw a hissy fit was this post at the oh-so-famous "Six Meat Buffet", which snarked at the deceased Gilliard using the same racist language Gilliard himself had so loved to use during his lifetime.

Aside from a brief moment of fame following his use of Klan propaganda techniques to attack black Republicans, no significant conservative even bothered to notice Gilliard had been alive in the first place. The Times is exaggerating the importance of an insignificant leftie troll.

What is it about the Left? Their blogs are full of vulgarities and obscenities. They are also filled with hate, vitriol, and death wishes on anyone who is to the right of Che Gueverra. Sometimes I thinkg they are written by high school gang members in the locker room.

The amazing thing is that the media gives them so much play. They even give them credibility. This credibility gives them a cachet of influence.

I have never heard of that Six Meat guy. Is there anyone significant who wrote crap like that? If Crittendon linked to him, link to the post where he did. I see that 6M linked to Crit, but I don't think he linked back. Don't just guess that others linked. This is my point in the post. Support what you are saying with links. Or apologize for adding to the distortion.

The next time that mean Ann girl picks on you, you just tell her to stop and bring your dolls back home so she can't play with them anymore. And you keep telling her she can't talk to you like you're just a kid and she's your teacher 'cause playbox is fair play space, and no bullying allowed, read the sign.

Me, I say Six Meat pretty much nailed Gilliard four-square. When simply considering the gauche, tacky, and downright cheap shots that Gilliard himself took at others, normal people lose all sympathy for him. Live by the sword, die by the sword. But then, leftards always snivel and whine "no fair" when they are busted.

I'm not sure how many RW blogs are out there, but we seemed to have went from "MANY" to "recall reading several blogs" to one blog that has the word "six" in it. Well, I guess that counts for something.

"I saw them. and it was totally disgusting." Not only does he need an editor, but a proofreader too.

Given the sarcasm of Crittenden's post and his wondering where the moving tributes from the right were, his use of the words "here we go" to describe the 6MB stuff seems to be more sarcasm and not an approval. Whether that changes anything, I'm not sure.

Doyle, given your unhinged malice, lack of civility, and conversational bad faith, Ann is quite reasonable to ask for links. You're basically a fart to Christopher's turd and, sadly, you have lingered in the room after that other clown circled the bowl.

Gilliard was more malicious before 9am than any number of malice-mongers are all day. His writing had an undercurrent of misery. I doubt the right will mourn 6MB--the left really should have limited itself to mourning the loss on a personal level. The vitriol of his work fatally obscured any talent or insight.

Like Doyle, Gilliard's hordes resented that someone might hold a teaching post and not toe the line (they wanted to intimidate InstaPundit out of the teaching business (and no, I'm not wading into the Gilliardian cesspool to find the link, so feel free to discount this side point)).

First, Ann, it's an essay. I don't think they're under much obligation to be entirely balanced. And, ignoring your selective bolding, it's clear that Bai is attributing those sentiments to Gilliard's friends. You're reading it as some sort of objective statement on the relative comportment of each side of the blogosphere, when it's really just Bai describing what the people close to Gilliard cited as their reason for wanting keep secret the location of his grave.

It's also an essay about a dead left-wing blogger, so of course the issue of his political opponents' reaction is going to deal with right-wing bloggers.

Finally, for everyone--it doesn't matter whether or not "prominent" right-wing bloggers were gloating. The concern articulated in the essay was that some bloggers were saying some nasty things and just might feel inclined to do something stupid to Gilliard's grave. Do you seriously believe that there weren't any such posts (or comments or emails) anywhere?

Well now, let's see. Earlier, in my 11:26am post, I identified the one right-wing blogger who "gloated" over the troll's death.

Along comes Doyle, reposting the same link. Thank, Doyle, we can always count on you to repeat stuff smarter people have already pointed out.

But Doyle did add a damning bit of evidence that Jules Crittenden linked (gasp!) to the 6MB post (as did dozens of left-wing blogs). Jules' "gloating" consisted of saying "ok, here we go". Wow -- what a meanie!

Realizing that the Crittenden point had come dangerously close to qualifying as an original thought, Doyle quickly repeated mutaman's inane comment that there are "a lot of people who have never heard [Ann]", thereby resecuring his position as the guy you never need to read because someone else has beaten him to whatever point he's trying to make.

Incidently, "Six Meat Buffet" is #1432 in blogospheric visits, losing out in popularity to the "Crime in Charlotte, NC" blog and the "Perfume-Smellin' Things" perfume blog. So why anyone who wasn't a complete dolt could think that qualifies as a "significant blogger" remains a mystery.

And Julia, all Reynolds did was note that a blogger had been driven offline for linking to the aforementioned Six Meat Buffet post. Unless you can offer a convincing explanation as to why that qualifies as "gloating", you owe Ann an apology for claiming she was being disingenuous. Reynolds didn't gloat.

In English, the claim "X was sickened by Y" includes the implicit claim that Y really did take place. I.e., you can't say "many Americans were sickened by Bill Clinton's rape of Juanita Broederick" and then say "gosh golly gee, *I* never claimed he raped anyone!".

If you want your sentence to describe X's sentiments, you say "X say that they are sickened by Y". Any competent writer knows this stuff.

"But then, leftards always snivel and whine "no fair" when they are busted."

What in Bai's story would constitute "sniveling and Whining"?

"Not only does he need an editor, but a proofreader too".

And don't forget the typos. It's the internet, buddy. Do we need to spend more time proofing our comments? Stick to the substance.

"Six Meat Buffet" is #1432 in blogospheric visits"

I think the ole perfesser now requires a "link" supporting this statement. So put up or shut up. Actually my research shows six meat to rank much higher (1,154th) and he is read faithfully every day by his mother. Research also shows that revenant ranks 244th on the list of those who have way too much time on their hands. Maybe he can moonlight as a proofreader.

Yesterday, four readers who created new accounts and recommended pro-Clinton postings were traced back to Clinton's campaign. And those readers, Blue Hampshire noted, didn't disclose their relationship with Clinton. In the blogosphere, there's a word for this frowned-upon behavior: "sock-puppeting."

Actually, no, technically that would be closer to "astroturfing." Sock-puppeting generally means one person is assuming several identities which make the same arguments as the person does in his own name (see Greenwald).

What Gilliard said about Steele was full of such a deep-seated, unreasoning hate that one would like to think that most people would reject it out of hand.

But, unfortunately, it was the RIGHT KIND of hate. Lefties spare nothing in their viciousness in attacking people they consider "race traitors." Facts are unnecessary or fabricated; reasoned argument's out, and the use of normally-unacceptable racial invective is suddenly OK. All because of political disagreement.

Mutaman said..."I know a lot of people who have never heard of Ann Althouse either."

Well, I didn't say anything about myself, but since you brought it up, I will say that my traffic is pretty high, and I'm prominently linked, including in MSM, so I would classify someone at this level as a significant blogger. Of course, that means many people have never heard of me. Duh.

"You asked for a cite, he gave you a cite. End of story."

It's not the end of the story. It's a cite, but it's not a cite that goes to what I asked for.

Doyle, thanks for the Crittendon link, but I don't think that is really a link that approves of what it's linking to. He's saying Gillard was a strong adversary, and you couldn't knock him down with insults. If you put that forward as part of the nastiness AGAINST Gillard, then you should count Kos and the various lefty blogs that linked to 6M. It makes no sense.

And of course I don't TRUST you. You proved yourself untrustworthy just now.

Julia said..."Actually, Professor Althouse, Professor Reynolds both covered that controversy and linked to the post it was about, so it's a tad disingenuous to claim it was under the radar. You may not have read it, but it was certainly out there."

I didn't claim the controversy was under the radar. I said I didn't think any significant right-wing blogs were themselves gloating. If they, like the lefty blogs, were discussing the uproar about 6M, it's not the same. Get clear what I'm saying and what I'm asking for and respond to that.

Stephen Snell said..."Given the sarcasm of Crittenden's post and his wondering where the moving tributes from the right were, his use of the words "here we go" to describe the 6MB stuff seems to be more sarcasm and not an approval. Whether that changes anything, I'm not sure."

Matt said..."First, Ann, it's an essay. I don't think they're under much obligation to be entirely balanced. And, ignoring your selective bolding, it's clear that Bai is attributing those sentiments to Gilliard's friends. You're reading it as some sort of objective statement on the relative comportment of each side of the blogosphere, when it's really just Bai describing what the people close to Gilliard cited as their reason for wanting keep secret the location of his grave. It's also an essay about a dead left-wing blogger, so of course the issue of his political opponents' reaction is going to deal with right-wing bloggers."

It is a sharp, crafted essay in a very prominent place, with this blogger chosen as one of the few people who were included in an important annual feature. It is therefore absolutely justified to observe and critique any political manipulations. I totally reject the idea that this is simply a solemn acknowledgment of the passing of a human being. This is an essay with a point of view, and everything in it is meaningful. In fact, it disrespects the author not to perceive the nature of an essay of this kind.

"Finally, for everyone--it doesn't matter whether or not "prominent" right-wing bloggers were gloating. The concern articulated in the essay was that some bloggers were saying some nasty things and just might feel inclined to do something stupid to Gilliard's grave. Do you seriously believe that there weren't any such posts (or comments or emails) anywhere?"

There are millions of blogs. My criticism is that the NYT made it look as if the right blogosphere is monstrous. If the article had said some miniscule blogger gloated it wouldn't have had the impact and, in fact, it wouldn't have been worth putting in the essay.

Good evening all. Greatly flattered to be the subject of so much scholarly speculation. No, linking does not automatically signify approval. Haven't read all the comments, but in case no one noticed, there was another Crittenden post re Gilliard. It was when NYT paid him the astonishing honor of an obituary.

What is it about the Left? Their blogs are full of vulgarities and obscenities. They are also filled with hate, vitriol, and death wishes

Speaking of cites, if you leave aside commenters, I'd like to see death wish examples from lefty bloggers.

I also don't buy the definition of 'anyone significant' as 'bloggers heavily trafficked.' Even in context. After all, Bai stated "some right wing bloggers" not all, not big popular blog sites, nor any fresh definition of significant.

After what Six Meat Buffet wrote, do you think it unwarranted that some might be concerned about what the level of vitriol could mean towards Steve or his family?

It was hardly the first time righties went after Gilliard that way, too.

Nobody said the entire rightwing blogosphere was monstrous. I'll say there's plenty of anger, 'bad words', etc to go around on either side.

I will maintain there's a huge difference that remains. Bad words can be responded to with the old saw about 'sticks and stones'. But the advocacy of torture, murder and actions that lead to the slaughter of hundreds of thousands actually does leave holes in humanity.

An occasional cuss or namecalling hardly compares to that. Or do you need cites to Hinderaker, Den Beste or others to understand that there's lots of advocacy out there for some seriously twisted actions against actual people, many of them innocent?

For those who don't know who Mr. Gilliard is; I'd like to post some of his "passionate' Writings:

WE TOLD YOU SO

Ever wonder why New Yorkers detest George Bush?

Because we experienced his incompetence up close and person. We knew this guy was full of shit, absolutely full of f**king shit, after they started to play games with the funding and gave Wyoming terrorism money. We knew he was an assclown then.

We thought DC 9/11 was a comedy, because the Bush we saw hid in AF One like the scared bitch that he is.

But did you listen?

You say this isn't about politics? F**k you, this IS politics... Tax cuts kill. Ask the relatives of the dead of the Gulf Coast.

Well, motherf**kers, the alligators are feasting on dead nigger and there isn't an Iraqi in sight.

Well, m**herf**kers, and that means you, fat ass Goldberg and your master, Rich Lowry, PNAC Bitch Beinart, the racist wannabe white Malkin and the little fucktards at LGF, Bareback Andy and "Diversity" Instacracker, all you backstabbing, fag hating uncle tom ministers, you can see Dear Leader in action. America's largest port is gone, maybe forever, gas is $5+ a gallon and FEMA is coming. Whores come faster with old men than FEMA is getting to NOLA.

Drunken Chris Hitchens muttered some nonsense about blacks having it so good here. The poor man needs to stay in his bottle or go to Betty Ford before someone beats his treasonous ass stupid. Islamofascism means what, now motherf**ker? Shove Islamofascism up your well travelled ass. The most dangerous thing to average Americans is not some mullah in Iraq, not even Osama Bin Laden, but George Bush. If he doesn't get you killed in Iraq, he'll f**k up saving your city so it turns into Escape from New Orleans. Armed junkies roaming the streets, looking for a fix, robbing and looting like Serb paramilitaries and about as sober.

George Bush's ineptitude has killed far more Americans than Osama could have dreamed of.

You can't hide behind racism forever. Bush f**ked up, Bush is a weak, callous leader and the world knows this like it knows few other things. And all the stolen TV's in the world cannot hide that.

Ha. Love how Gilliard felt it necessary to put in a lame qualifier re the looting. Ya, New Orleans flooding from the storm surge had *nothing* to do with the character of the locals or the corruption of the Big Easy... That must be why Houston is kicking them all back to Louisiana. What an asshat.

Never knew who Mr. Gilliard was until today. Does that piece fairly represent his body of work? Why did people give him an audience to begin with? He sounds no better than some of the lefty trolls that once frequented this site.

One example that immediately leaps to mind is the Huffington Post praying for God to kill Dick Cheney with a heart attack. Classy!

ah. I see. When a former editor of National Lampoon and Spy does a satire post at HuffPo, that represents a genuine wish for Cheney's death. Written in a style that's obvious nonsense.

And Jonathan Swift was sincerely advocating the edibility of poor children. WHOOSH.

Gilliard could and did dish it out in a no-holds-barred style designed to offend dainty sensibilities. Rude? Sure. Pottymouthed? You bet.

He attacked the actions and results, the motivations and attitudes. He pissed people off and felt it necessary to do so.

He didn't advocate that everyone should utilize the same approach, he didn't advocate his political enemies should move to France and he sent death threats to no-one.

It doesn't surprise me that some righties said 'who?' when he died. Some said that to deliberately belittle. Some were simply oblivious.

And it's not like Steve was Shakespeare. Even liberals who disagreed with his blunt forceful language knew his name, though, and knew he had the attention of a broad readership. Spinoffs from Eschaton and Dkos were pretty well known to anyone who's been reading the blogs for 4 or more years: Gilliard, Left Coaster, Corrente, First Draft, Meteor Blades, Bump in the Beltway, My Left Wing.... blogosphere newbies may not, just as they don't have a clue who Matt Welch is. Or Tony Pierce, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, etc.

Which is a pretty weak argument to defend the cruel attacks on a dead man who never hurt anything beyond someone's sensibilities.

Better to change the subject than to defend the indefensible.

And it's funny what kicked this whole thing off, as Bai did not come close to attacking all right wing blogs or anything close to that.

ah. I see. When a former editor of National Lampoon and Spy [and blah blah blah]

You asked for an example of left-wingers wishing death on people, so I provided one. Please don't take that as evidence that I'm interested in hearing your entirely predictable rationalizations as to why it isn't bad so long as the people are "joking". The "Six Meat Buffet" guy obviously wasn't being serious either, but that didn't stop the Kossites and the New York Times from shitting their pants in collective horror over the offensiveness of it.

[Gilliard] attacked the actions and results, the motivations and attitudes. He pissed people off and felt it necessary to do so.

It has already been established that he was a troll. There's no need to belabor the point. What is relevant is that he wasn't a significant writer. Nobody outside his immediate family and the leftie echo chamber cares that the man lived or died.